No HD playback in 32-bit Vista

[Kurt`]

http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne...other-feature-full-hd-playback-in-32bit-vista

Hilarious.

Reasons to upgrade = going into negative numbers

 

[Adaptus]

What the hell are they thinking?

 

[Jariroth]

Looks like no Vista for me in a while...Until somebody can figure out why anybody should get one? There's just no point. Seems like they are just cutting off features not adding anything...

 

[Sicron]

Kinda stupid as most PC's are 32 bit. No problem for me though, I have a 64 bit processor.

 

[DragonDude]

Just a pathetic, underhanded way to push the new 64-bit Intel processors onto consumers.

Go ahead and use Vista on a 64-bit processor and see how quick it takes for you to be blue pilled.

 

[|Overlord|]

Just a pathetic, underhanded way to push the new 64-bit Intel processors onto consumers.

Go ahead and use Vista on a 64-bit processor and see how quick it takes for you to be blue pilled.

64bit instuctions have been used on intel chips since the P4 600 series, and intel has released some 500series chips with 64bit extensions as well, though they practically mimiced/are the same the 64bit extensions of the A64.

This is just becoming a marketing failure really, I was hoping to use my current box for a media center when I get around to upgrading but if I don't have HD playback supported in the os i'll end up using then it's pretty pointless. I'll probably just leave the machine on XP.

 

[imported_Pemalite]

"EM64T was originally implemented on the E revision (Prescott) of Pentium 4 line of microprocessors, which were supported by i915P (Grantsdale) and i925X (Alderwood) chipsets in June of 2004"

And there are several difference between EMT64 and Athlon 64.
Intel did -NOT- Copy it from AMD, they made it "Compatable"
With AMD's version.
And Both AMD and Intels Processors are not actually fully 64Bit processors, its more so... a feature "Tacked on" to extend the x86 deseign.
AMD64 processors lacked the CMPXCHG16B instruction, which is an extension of the CMPXCHG8B instruction present on most post-486 processors,
Early Intel CPUs with EM64T lacked LAHF and SAHF instructions supported by AMD64 until introduction of Pentium 4 G1 step in December 2005. LAHF and SAHF are load/store instructions for certain status flags.
Both Intel and AMD are constantly adding in new commands. And we will never have true 64Bit performance, UNTILL we get full native 64bit processors. (Dont even start with the Itanium).

Now, theres alot of software producers and underground software makers for the Windows Platform, So It will be more than likely that this feature will be hacked/made to run on 32bit version of the OS and CPU.

 

[|Overlord|]

"EM64T was originally implemented on the E revision (Prescott) of Pentium 4 line of microprocessors, which were supported by i915P (Grantsdale) and i925X (Alderwood) chipsets in June of 2004"

And there are several difference between EMT64 and Athlon 64.
Intel did -NOT- Copy it from AMD, they made it "Compatable"
With AMD's version.
And Both AMD and Intels Processors are not actually fully 64Bit processors, its more so... a feature "Tacked on" to extend the x86 deseign.
AMD64 processors lacked the CMPXCHG16B instruction, which is an extension of the CMPXCHG8B instruction present on most post-486 processors,
Early Intel CPUs with EM64T lacked LAHF and SAHF instructions supported by AMD64 until introduction of Pentium 4 G1 step in December 2005. LAHF and SAHF are load/store instructions for certain status flags.
Both Intel and AMD are constantly adding in new commands. And we will never have true 64Bit performance, UNTILL we get full native 64bit processors. (Dont even start with the Itanium).

Now, theres alot of software producers and underground software makers for the Windows Platform, So It will be more than likely that this feature will be hacked/made to run on 32bit version of the OS and CPU.

True, however non-tech savy issues really don't think that far ahead (tell me how much of the windows user base is taken in buy what MS says). It just is adding more pressure really if anything for users to upgrade their systems, and plus work arounds aren't without their problems in some cases.

I also see you got that information from wikipedia.

 

[imported_Pemalite]

Thats indeed true.
And to watch HD DVD content on a machine, you need a really really good monitor, otherwise your might as well stick to normal DVD and use a graphics card's Video Accellerator to handle the rest.
(Otherwise you need a 3ghz+ Processor without a decent graphics card).
This just reminds me of the whole DVD with Windows XP crap. Even though it was supported by other developers with 3rd party software on Win98.
(You need the codec for WinXP as well).
Time will tell. I wont be jumping on the Vista bandwagon for a while yet. (I did try Vista Beta 2 and the aero themed looks nice, but still needs more work).

 

[Kurt`]

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/windows-vista-32bit-can-play-hd-dvd-bluray-movies-196535.php

LOL

Did Microsoft's public relations department get replaced by Sony's marketing department or something?

They still haven't clearly stated whether full HD will be available... o_o

 

[|Overlord|]

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33946

VOLISH SPINSTERS moved into damage limitation mode this morning after it appears one of their product managers said the wrong thing down-under.

This morning we reported how Microsoft's senior program manager Steve Riley told Tech.Ed 2006 in Sydney that the 32-bit versions of Vista will not be able to play back BluRay and HD-DVD. He added that this was at the request of Hollywood.

Volish spinsters initially claimed that the story was wrong and requested a transcript of the speech. They later had to admit that Riley was quoted accurately.

Amir Majidimehr, Volish Vice President of the Consumer Media Technology Group popped up on the AVS forum to say that Riley works in a different division and had not been properly informed.

He said that no version of Vista will decide if a piece of content will play back or not and it is up to a particular ISV to determine which environments are suitable for their playback. Not Windows Vista, and not Microsoft.

The real deal is that no version of Windows Vista will make a determination as to whether any given piece of content should play back or not. It was up to the software people to decide if it was going to pay.

Vista will list any unsigned drivers on the system but it will remain up to the independent software vender to decide if playback will be enabled. Majidimehr said nothing had been cut from Windows Vista.

Who will give us the truth o_o?.

 

[DragonDude]

Who will give us the truth o_o?.

Not the Inquirer, lol

Microsoft's been putting their foot in their mouth with just about everything they say about Vista. Then they wonder why most people consider it to be a claim of security coupled with a pretty new UI.

 

[Scruff]

BUT AT LEAST WE CAN STILL SEE THROUGH TEH WINDOW PANES LOL

 

[|Overlord|]

Not the Inquirer, lol

Microsoft's been putting their foot in their mouth with just about everything they say about Vista. Then they wonder why most people consider it to be a claim of security coupled with a pretty new UI.

If you read "Australia" and "Sydney", that's where I live. You shouldn't just bag the inquirer even with correct news... It doesn't always makes them "Incorrect". I could also get a copy of the review most likely if I wanted, but I don't have to go that far .

 

[imported_Pemalite]

"Update 08/25/2006: Microsoft PR manager Adam Anderson tells CNET that the original statement made by Riley is partially incorrect and, "It is up to the ISVs providing playback solutions to determine whether the intended playback environment, including environments with a 32-bit CPU, meets the performance requirements to allow high-definition playback while supporting the guidelines set forth by the content owners. No version of Windows Vista will make a determination as to whether any given piece of content should play back or not."

However, even Anderson is not correcting Riley's statement that WMP11 will not play Blu-ray or HD DVD content. Instead he claims support will come from 3rd party vendors like Cyberlink. " - From Daily tech. Alot more reliable than the Inquirer. Their making it sound as if 32bit only CPU's are marginally slower than a 64bit processor?
Bugger it, We will find out when it all rolls out of the shadow. At least no one can speculate then.

 

[frsrblch]

Most people don't have 64bit processors and most people don't have good enough monitors to begin with, so, although they're shooting themselves in the foot here, I only think they're taking off a toe or two.

 

[imported_Pemalite]

Well actually, more than 60% of the market has a 64bit processor. (Albeit mainly work stations) In the form of the Athlon 64, and Pentium 4 Prescott with EMT64. (Basically any computer baught in the last 2 years).
Most monitors that are sold have a max resolution of 1280x1024. That is still double the resolution shown with a DVD, and you would notice a difference when running HD DVD/ Blue ray on a computer in comparison to DVD.
Most household T.V's are just the standard CRT based device, and are not anything special, where the DVD max's out that display device in terms of resolution. (Not to mention T.V's are blurry)

 

[frsrblch]

Most monitors that are sold have a max resolution of 1280x1024.

My 5 year old crap Dell came with 1600x1200...

So if 60% have 64bit, and most of those people are probably the same type of person that would buy Vista and watch HD content on their computer rather than on a TV, what's the big deal?

Edit: I thought 1600x1200 was the standard for a monitor. The 5 year old 17" at my dad's even supported it.

 

[imported_Pemalite]

Your missing the point.
Theres still a huge market of non 64bit machines.
For instance Intels best selling centrino with the Dothan And Yonah Processors, they are quick little processors more than capable of running HD content, my laptop (Using a Yonah 1.6ghz overclocked to 2.4ghz), only has a max resolution of 1280x800 (Widescreen). I for one wish to watch HD content on the move, but I am not going to buy a completly new machine to do it. And you might have baught a dell with a maximum resolution of 1600x1200 BUT alot of people wouldnt have bothered with a screen that large, because it wastes space. My Desktop machine only has a 17" monitor, because I want more desk space, and being a gamer, its CRT. (I really dont like LCD for games I dont care what anyone says, personal preferance).
And now it looks like HD content will be able to run on a 32 bit system so meh.
And if someone can afford a 3000 dollar system, with a 64bit processor, 1gb of ram and a Radeon graphics card, well, they can obviously afford a HD TV of some kind. (I'm Australian, so things SEEM more expensive here).

 

[|Overlord|]

From Daily tech. Alot more reliable than the Inquirer.

It's funny how two tech sites have an article on the same thing.

So if 60% have 64bit, and most of those people are probably the same type of person that would buy Vista and watch HD content on their computer rather than on a TV, what's the big deal?

AMD first released Athlon64 chips on the socket 754 platform back in 2003, competing intel chips at the time were not 64bit however.

For instance Intels best selling centrino with the Dothan And Yonah Processors, they are quick little processors more than capable of running HD content, my laptop (Using a Yonah 1.6ghz overclocked to 2.4ghz), only has a max resolution of 1280x800 (Widescreen). I for one wish to watch HD content on the move, but I am not going to buy a completly new machine to do it.

My thoughts exactly.

Most monitors that are sold have a max resolution of 1280x1024.

I myself am still using CRT screens (2x 17" screens), with max resolution of 1280x1024 on each screen.